Fat Camp: The Erhardt-Perkins Offense, Part 2

Doc BearSep 10, 2011 2:00 PM

On Wednesday we talked about the Erhardt-Perkins offense: its history, some of its usage and some principles on how it’s going to be used in Denver. Today I’d like to touch a little more upon what the Air Coryell offense is and how it fits together with the EP for Denver, including specifically what the groups of players are doing by position.

As I noted last article, Denver is combining the EP vertical passing offense with its power running game - and by saying ‘power’ I’m not dismissing the zone blocking aspect. Big, stronger blockers with good feet fit into this approach efficiently - they can have a lot of size and power, even though zone blocking is generally expected from smaller linemen. The issue is simply whether they have the feet to handle it. A simple way of combining the two systems comes from Ron Erhardt himself. Back towards the end of his coaching days, Erhardt took his system and combined it into a hybrid with the spread formation, in an approach that was quickly dubbed ‘Air Erhardt’. A coach whose team has been running a spread variation and is developing a good running game can use some plays from that as a good beginning. Denver is more likely to do what they’ve said - to use the run more aggressively.

There are unquestionably overlaps that would let Mike McCoy use that spread/EP combination if he's interested. It combines much of what Josh McDaniels did in setting up his own preferences with some pretty standard EP principles - motion on the OL and both pulling and trapping, with aggressive run formations and scheme and a power running game that also protects the QB. The differences, as you’d expect, would mostly come in the integration of the running game with the spread. A higher emphasis on the running game and an emphasis when passing on going vertical (more, say, than the amount that you’d go horizontal in combining the WCO with the EP, is another option that’s worth discussion at some point).

Other ways to vary it would hinge on the amount and the style of running versus passing - how much the TEs and RBs are used, whether you use max-protect (and how often) and similar areas. We’ve talked about much of this already so I won’t bore you rehashing it - if any questions come up, please ask by emailing me at alloverfatman@gmail.com

Integrating the System

There are normally three or four basics when integrating the EP and your own running game:

You’ll need at least two faster receivers for the longer routes combined with a skilled pocket passing offensive QB. This is one reason that Tim Tebow isn’t being used right away - his skillset just doesn’t fit the combination of systems on offense as well as Kyle Orton’s does. The scheme calls for a vertical pocket passer.

A strong inside power running game (which also is a great weapon against the classic 3-4 defenses that San Diego and KC run).

Mid-range routes by TEs, WRs and sometimes RBs. Shorter routes can be substituted at times depending on the players’ skillsets. The WRs, as noted, are usually going for some vertical real estate. That doesn’t mean that they won’t go shorter.

Although people often miss this one, the combined system is extremely effective in the red zone and on short-yardage situations. You can’t just stack to stop the run and you can’t blitz to stop the pass, because the offense can audible out of either dilemma. Denver’s struggled especially in the red zone recently and this should prove helpful. The combination of the two systems (EP and Coryell) doesn’t permit the defense to lock down just one or the other. The pass routes tend to set up fast in the shortened area of the red zone and the threat of the more powerful run game makes it hard to defend against both.

Remember, EP offenses also tend to run a lot of trapping and pulling by the tackles/TEs and guards. The majority of the movement is the pulling of the guards - if you’re going to run right, the left guard - Zane Beadles, say - is going to take a step back and to the right with his right foot, turn and then hightail it to the offense's right in order to help clear the way at the front of the playside blocking for the RB. Every offense I know of in the NFL uses this approach part of the time, and all the OL players know and understand the way you pull a guard.

Trapping is similar - it’s occasionally known as a ‘mousetrap’, and sometimes the tight end but more often the tackle is responsible. In either case, the point of a trap block is to let a defender come on through the LOS while a lineman off to one side pulls back and out of the line on the snap and comes across to block that defender outward from the inside as he heads across the LOS. Done right, it takes the player clear out of the play.

The movement aspect of the Coryell/EP fits well into the blocking that McDaniels wanted used when he first arrived. Denver will add more zone blocking on running downs, but intersperse some degree of ‘gap’ blocking - which emphasizes pulling guards - although Denver will be adding trapping by tackles and tight ends as well. Overall, regardless of the specifics that we can’t know yet, we do know that historically the combination of the two is a pretty effective, well-balanced attack. Using line motion with inside runs along with the vertical passing attack has also been very effective in red zone situations, as noted, and we all know Denver could use some more red-zone effectiveness.

What’s the QB Doing?

In terms of passing, the EP commonly uses a Coryell-based vertical passing attack that creates the time for those plays to develop (among other options) by freezing the D momentarily with play-action passing. Orton is particularly good there, and that may give him time to work through his progressions, which he can be slow at sometimes. There’s not much question that WR Brandon Lloyd will be a frequent target, although the QB will be moving the ball around. Again, keep in mind that a predominately vertical passing attack like Denver’s can (and should) have horizontal options (the quick passes to the flat, for example) that keep the system from becoming predictable. That’s where some folks say that they see a way to overlap with the WCO - I don’t disagree.

TJ made a good point that affects Denver when he was explaining the RB/TE/WR groupings and how they’re counted in 212, 221 or 311 by more commentators. TJ also noted that most hardcore football junkies will take the route of the coaches and players and use the two-digit system (21, 22, 31, respectively). This is the system that you see our own Ted Bartlett use because the two numbers imply the third - there are 11 positions, 5 of them are OL and 1 is a QB, so if you know the number of running backs and TEs, you can know the number of WRs. The three-digit system is also commonly used, though. (Note - I use it frequently, as I tend to avoid math:D).

As TJ points out, the personnel packages take you a lot deeper into the football strategy of individual teams than you might realize, for it's the first telltale sign of what an offense plans to do. However, personnel packages are not a substitute for offensive philosophies. A different Coryell/Vertical Offensive philosophy is a good example of this. Chargers head coach Norv Turner learned the Air Coryell system from Ernie Zampese, who learned it from Coryell himself. Norv Turner, as TJ noted, currently uses a two-back personnel system to stretch the field. He utilizes play action, running backs in protection, and mid-to-deep routes. It's a very thorough, effective system with options for nearly all down-and-distance circumstances.

Mike Martz, offensive coordinator for the Chicago Bears, also comes out of the Coryell school, but utilizes an extensive one-back system with infrequent use of play action, since it’s not Jay Cutler’s forte (developing better pocket protection is one goal of the Coryell/EP, and Chicago needs it. They’re using some of the same approaches that Denver is, which makes sense). Denver will be coming from the same general system (and suffers the same basic problems with protection) but will be using both max-protect and a 212 package - 2 RBs, 1 TE and 2 WRs - to accomplish carrying off the EP.

We’ve discussed the various issues and responsibilities often enough to pass on adding another section on the RBs. Suffice it to say that a smashmouth approach that uses pulling and trapping by the line uses RBs as receivers as well as blocker/ball carriers will be looked for from the Broncos.

Air Coryell and the EP

The Coryell offense was grown from the fertile soil of Sid Gillman’s remarkably creative mind - he set the stage for both the vertically-inclined passing approach of Al Davis and Don Coryell, and also the horizontally-based system of Bill Walsh’s, which has come most commonly to be called the West Coast Offense. You will still find people who prefer that appellation for the Coryell system. Don Coryell used this system in San Diego with ‘Dandy’ Dan Fouts to rewrite a lot of records when Coryell was head coach of the Chargers between 1978 and 1986. Coryell also used power running with his passing approach, a fact that isn’t lost on Mike McCoy or the Broncos.

Air Coryell uses at least two faster receivers for the downfield routes - play action slows the pass rush, but won’t hold it back forever. It requires a QB with a strong, accurate arm, which is one reason that Orton got the starting job for Denver.

The combined systems tend to either keep a TE in as a wing back or an F-back (The term H-back is also used, although Ted understandably hates it - It’s not that accurate and I’ve noticed that a lot of coaches are getting away from using it.) to improve the QB protection, allowing the longer passes to set up. He can swing out for a pass, stay in for protection or even swing back to take a handoff or pitch. Norv Turner has been fond of that variation over the years - his system also combines the Air Coryell with other attributes. Again, in doing so you can’t just lock down on the run or pass, which keeps the D off-balance.

TJ also noted that the Air Coryell Offense has four basic principles:

Stretch the field

Protect the passer

Confuse the defense

Run it down their throats.

The offensive line is usually composed of the biggest and/or meanest group of guys with good feet that you can find as to employ the power running game needed to pound away at defenses (yes, you can use power- and zone-blocking simultaneously on the same team). While the blocking varies, in Denver the line generally blocks in a zone scheme, meaning they block and hit anyone that comes into a given player’s zone and that the OL tends to move mostly in unison. The offense is also a passing offense, though, and the wide receivers (and, in Denver’s case, often the TEs) run intermediate-to-long-range routes, with swing, screen and outlet passes being handled mostly by the RBs underneath. In order to give those mid-to-longer routes time to develop, quarterback protection is at a premium. How do you maximize it?

Play-action

Motion - OL, TE, and/or WR

Powerful line play

Max-protect

Three wide-receiver sets are also a staple of the Coryell system. In fact, the three-wide set was a Coryell staple when Don himself was calling it. Joe Gibbs, another Coryell-lineage coach, developed the bunch formation and added to it the three tight-end set, so there’s a lot of history here. For those who aren’t familiar with the background, Sid Gillman developed a multitude of new approaches to passing, including both vertical and horizontal movement, the second of which Bill Walsh and his risk-adverse preferences used to spread the field to win three Super Bowls (as others have since then with the same approach), and the vertical package of the system was honed by both Coryell and by Al Davis in Oakland, LA and Oakland again.

In other words, the offensive philosophy is not wedded to a specific personnel package or single requirement. The personnel package, is, rather, a specific instrument of attack. You can beat your opponent with pass-catching tight ends or speedy wide receivers. You can run the ball down their throats, swing out three TEs or send three WRs flying down the field to open the pass. It's simply a matter of preferences and degree - and having the best personnel for one or another of those options. What I loved most about Sid Gillman’s work was that he could adapt his systems to nearly anything in terms of player personnel. That’s also true of the EP.

While the Coryell offense is essentially a passing offense, one of the advantages combining it with the EP is that you can make the argument that the EP is a more wide-ranging system - it includes more running plays and concepts than just playing smashmouth, and it has a wide range of passing options. As noted, it’s been a smashmouth football game, a vertical passing system and/or both, and of the four principles listed by TJ, you won’t always use all four on all plays. Two that are essential to the system working, however, are to protect the QB and confuse the defense while you’re stretching the field and establishing the run. Given the Broncos' recent history in terms of protecting the QB (they often didn’t), gaining the extra options to keep your QB upright is just good sense.

Pass to Run, Run to Pass

There’s been a furor for years about the idea that you should either run to set up the pass or pass to set up the run, and sometimes the arguments about which is the better approach go on for days. However, there’s a middle road here, too - it’s more common to pass to set up the run nowadays, but you can run to set up the pass, too, and the EP can do it either way. You can slow the pass rush by running the ball, and you can open lanes for the run by passing the ball. Right now, the passing game is dominant in the NFL but it’s not always as simple as it sounds. If you show the defense that you’re going to pass, they have an advantage. If you show them pass but then surprise them by running the ball, the same kind of thing ensues in reverse and you have the advantage. You can lose the advantage that surprise can bring if you don’t have the right options ready for the right play, down and distance, so the system can get very complex over time.

Passing and Motion in the EP and Air Coryell Systems

The main way to handle protecting the QB within both of these systems was generally provided by motion and shifting - creating distractions and indecision on the part of the defense by using trapping and pulling linemen and by motioning pass receivers as well as by play action. Following the Coryell system backward over time, we see that Norv Turner had over 40 different motion combinations when he was with the Redskins. Mike Martz’s Greatest Show on Turf in 1999 with St. Louis was also known for its extensive numbers of combinations.

It’s an aspect of the EP that can’t be oversold - it’s essential, as defenses become more aggressive in trying to balance out the dominance of the passing game, to find ways to protect the QB. The formations of EP and Air Coryell help with that. The integration of an aggressive run game with an aggressive vertical passing game give you a very versatile approach. Over time, Denver will probably develop an increasingly large number of motion options, especially if they can get the TE position (mostly Daniel Fells and Julius Thomas) brought up to a high quality, in order to intersperse the TE motion with the OL, WR and even RB motion.

Despite the reputation as a smashmouth running approach, it’s worth repeating that the EP has frequently been part of the best passing games in existence - it was used as a base for the Rams in 1999 and for the Patriots' record-setting run in the 2007 season during which they scored 589 points and 75 touchdowns. Tom Brady led the NFL with a 117.2 passer rating – not another record, but close to Peyton Manning's 121.1 of 2004. Only one full-time AFC starter, Jacksonville's David Garrard, had fewer than Brady's eight interceptions that year, and Brady threw 253 more passes. The EP has a long and storied history of scoring a lot of points when the players and coaching is there. There’s no reason that Denver can’t do the same with it, given the time to build the team.

Former Jets, Patriots and Chiefs OC (and current Gators OC) Charlie Weis has used the EP and the West Coast Offense as overlapping systems, and on a stream-of-conscious level I noticed how easily you can do that while watching the Buffalo/Denver preseason game. At Notre Dame, Weis used the pass to set up the run via play-action passing, which is a classic aspect to the EP. He often used the short pass to set up the long pass, and sometimes the run to set up the pass. He may be a much better OC than a HC, but he understands how flexible the EP system is and some of the less well-known ways to apply it. I’m looking forward to seeing how Denver uses it in 2011 - it seems to suit them very well.

Conclusion

Denver has a very flexible offensive system this year that combines a strong running game and the vertical passing game in a way that Denver fans have rarely, if ever, seen. The combination of a smashmouth running game, an increase of pass protection with the vertical passing game, and a substantial offseason emphasis on problem-solving with regard to the worst of the offensive issues of the past two seasons should give Denver a much more effective attack in 2011.

Mike McCoy has combined with Dave Magazu on the OL, Clancy Barone on tight ends, Adam Gase on QBs and Tyke Tolbert on wide receivers to put together a combination of some of the best principles of the passing and running attacks. It’s based in a hybrid of the Erhardt-Perkins offense and the Air Coryell - not a new approach, per se, but an effective one that permits a wide range of offensive options including improving protection for the QBs, developing a more effective running game and improving the third-down and red-zone numbers for the team. The approach can ‘eat’ the clock or strike quickly. It can be changed and adapted for your specific personnel - a greater emphasis on the run if that’s working, the option of a deeper passing attack if your receivers have that talent (Denver is plush there) and improved QB protection with an emphasis on a pocket passing game.

Kyle Orton seems to love the system. Orton has gone so far as to say that he doesn’t think that a team can stop the offense for four quarters straight. In fairness, whether the defense has to is up to the defense - if you have to make up two touchdowns, you’re still going to use the passing game more. The combination of the Coryell and the EP just gives some options that wouldn’t otherwise exist by letting the offense mix in runs that could go for longer yardage as the defense either brings up the safety to try and stop the run or drops him into coverage to try and prevent the deep pass. If the safety drops off, the TE has an opening for a slant pass to defeat the Cover 2. If he comes up, the longer pass routes are easier to complete. If the defense has to spread out to stop the vertical game, the inside run becomes easier as it gains yardage. Converge on that, and the mid-level routes to the far edge of the flat open up, as do runs around the tackle, led by the opposite pulling guard.

It’s not the McDaniels version of the EP as some have feared. It’s got even more flexibility via its emphasis on two things - the stronger running game and a greater confidence in the vertical pass. Orton - mostly with Brandon Lloyd and Eric Decker, but Orton can use a wide variety of options - ran the vertical game well overall, last season. With a better running game, a more aggressively blocking OL, continually bettering receivers (including Julius Thomas, Daniel Fells, Matthew Willis and Demaryius Thomas this year alone) and a more straightforward playbook, the Broncos have an opportunity to show fans and other teams alike that they are ready to start making a move back into the level of play that fans once enjoyed in Broncos County. I’m looking forward to it.

Excellent piece of work, Doc. Thanks for your efforts and your sharing of your amazing depth of knowledge about this game.

I enjoyed the Q&A with Piper @ #6&7. Makes a ton of sense.

TJ made a comment about Zack Miller&#8217s use in the Raiders offense last year. He was in on many many plays as he could not only block but also was good on the receiving end. So the defense would not be tipped off as to expect either a running or a pass play. I suspect our 3 TE&#8217s were brought in for that same reason.

Thanks again, Doc.

Posted by BlackKnight on 2011-09-12 08:04:50

Another great rendition of Doc&#8217s greatest hits! Pass to run and run to pass&#8230Awesome.

Posted by bfree2bronc on 2011-09-11 22:50:38

You&#8217re welcome, Boydy, and I&#8217m with you - everyone should be thinking about them on 9/11 today. Thanks to everyone who has jumped it.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-09-11 17:26:48

Larry told me about this site and while he was excites about it he did not do it justice.

Great info in Your descriptions.

Let&#8217s hope that Tebow can get that pocket passing down by EOY.

Not interested in breaking in another rookie qb. God only knows the pain that has caused in the past.

While I&#8217m one of the few fans that like Orton and think he has gotten a bum rap. I&#8217m ready to move on to Tebow, let&#8217s just hope his skills improve.

Posted by lonestar on 2011-09-11 13:23:03

Great article Doc.

The answer you gave to Piper in #7 is awesome.

I love learning new stuff, and thanks to Piper for penning a great question. I can finally see a plan!

GO BRONCOS!

Thoughts with all of those on this 9/11.

Posted by Boydy2669 on 2011-09-11 13:12:50

Thanks, Mike. The members make the site - glad that you&#8217re here.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-09-11 01:07:52

Thank you Doc, and all of you at IAOFM. This is the best site on the web.

Posted by Mikewyd on 2011-09-11 01:03:18

@ Piper:

I&#8217ve had other emails on this general question, so it&#8217s probably worth a comment. The offense as we know about it so far (which isn&#8217t much) is probably better suited to the skills of a pocket passer. Right now, Orton is a better pocket passer.

I think that mobility is always a plus if the passer has the necessary pocket skills and is good at throwing out of running - as you say, bootlegs, roll-outs, etc. I don&#8217t anticipate run and shoot types of plays often, just due to pass protection issues, but I expect that we&#8217ll see them from time to time. Orton was asked to roll out to his right a couple of times and seemed to do fine with it. That&#8217s been the case since 2008, but it hasn&#8217t been used much. If they decide to use Tebow, I&#8217d expect them to use them more often.

Your point as regards a pocket passer is valid - the system as far as we know about it is more appropriate to Orton&#8217s skillset at this point. Can they adapt it to use Tebow&#8217s skillset to better advantage? Sure. It&#8217s always going to require good pocket passing skills, which he&#8217ll have to demonstrate, but once he has there&#8217s no reason not to adapt the system, including more plays that use his feet.

On screens - Orton is very good at throwing a swing screen and has thrown bubble and tunnel screens well. He&#8217s not good at the &#8216conventional&#8217 or &#8216slow&#8217 screen, which requires a different kind of timing. Tebow throws that one well. Orton also throws flat over the LOS at times, which leads to his tendency to get balls tipped. Getting him out of the pocket to the right will help that if they keep the play in the playbook. Tebow&#8217s preference for throwing from outside the pocket may help him there. Orton is better at freezing the D with play action, which this approach uses frequently. That&#8217s not as strong a skill with Tebow, so if you move to him, you&#8217ll both work on his play-action skill and use plays that work better for him - the rollouts and bootlegs, for example.

I think that there&#8217s a reasonable concern with the appropriateness of a pocket passing system with Tebow - it isn&#8217t his optimal game at this point. It&#8217s better suited to Orton as it stands (to the best of my knowledge - it was preseason, after all). However, I don&#8217t see any difficulty adapting it to Tebow at some point in time.

For example, running backs tend to up their average yards per carry if the QB is also a running QB, so there&#8217s an advantage there. Most teams are going to do best keeping to a single system as much as possible, but if you have to change QBs, you can certainly add increased emphasis on plays that work best for the new player. The adaptability of the EP should help him if that happens. I hope that helps.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-09-10 23:25:50

I&#8217m trying to phrase this question so as to not open a can of worms that needs not be opened. How easy is it to change the offense to suit a different QB&#8217s strengths? Orton needs to play in the pocket, be well protected, and is good at play action.

Tebow, on the other hand, needs to work on his pocket passing. Still, I think some nice extras would be having Tebow on the move with rollouts, bootlegs, maybe some run and shoot type plays. Also Tebow is good at the screen game. So&#8230

Are the concerns expressed by some that Tebow would be a square peg in a round hole, or at limited by an offense not tailored to his strengths, at all valid? What would it take to change an offense built around Orton to one build around Tebow? Is there reason to be confident in McCoy and Gase can maximize Tebow&#8217s talents?

I wasn&#8217t able to watch any preseason games (just moved and still getting settled in my new house), only got to listen in on the radio. Based on the feedback of Ted (and other Fat Man writers who touched n this) that Denver was using different personnel groupings for different QBs, I&#8217m hopeful that the Bronco&#8217s coaching staff is flexible enough to take advantage of Tebow&#8217s unique talents.

Posted by Piper A R on 2011-09-10 22:43:48

That should read:

&#8220Those that can, do; those that can&#8217t, criticize.&#8221 The comma is important.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2011-09-10 22:34:45

I spent the year 1965-66 in Fargo on an internship, the year Ehrhardt first arrived as an assistant (actually met him). It was the first year of a rebuilding that quickly put NDState football on the map. The team moniker was The Bison, and its nickname was The Thundering Herd. When I arrived they were affectionately called The Blundering Herd. But that changed quickly and they won 2 small college national championships very quickly.

Thanks again Doc for your informative articles.

You&#8217ve put words to things that one senses as one watches the Broncos this year, though the pre-season was IMO only a tease.

The use of more 22, 21, 12 sets should provide the added flexibility you suggest.

And though the pre-season was fairly vanilla, I sensed a real excitement for the many possibilities that could be utilized. Orton&#8217s comment reflected my own interest in what was happening.

I suppose my biggest supprise has been the gratuitous criticism of Fox-McCoy&#8217s offensive prowess on the basis of IMO no tangible or intangible evidence. I&#8217m always puzzled by some people&#8217s believe that if one can find something to criticize, one must be intelligent. Just the opposite is actually the case. The old saying, &#8220Those that can, do; those that can&#8217t criticize,&#8217 seems approppo.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2011-09-10 22:32:08

Good Question, Piper. Sure - several teams, including the Ravens, go with more of an Air Coryell offense, which you posted as I was typing. It goes deeper, though.

There are two ways to look at it, to me - roots and influences. Every team in the modern age will have plays with influences (more than roots, per se) that trace back to older system. They may not have all of their roots in any one of them, but they will use certain concepts - every team that I can think of uses some timing routes, which were a big part of WCO, for example. The roots might not be there, but an influence is.

The Wing T uses concepts from the single wing and from the T formation. And, as I&#8217ve noted recently, Alonzo Stagg tried almost everything in his time at U of C long ago - http://athletics.uchicago.edu/....

He was even running shotgun formation plays back then. You still see both Wing T and single-wing influences now. Most OCs have a grounding in one approach more than the others, but I think that in the modern era, you&#8217ll see the horizontal influences of Walsh, the deeper passing influence of Coryell and aspects of the spread (3, 4 and 5 receiver sets) and aspects of the single wing in the variations on Wildcat plays and the Wing T in a lot of the running approaches so every team has some degree of those. The old guys started them, the new guys change them for the modern situations.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-09-10 21:25:58

I forgot about the Air Coryell tree. Unless I&#8217m forgetting something, it seems like all offenses in the NFL trace roots back to one of those 3 systems.

Posted by Piper A R on 2011-09-10 21:17:17

Are there any teams in the NFL using an offense that doesn&#8217t trace its roots back to the Erhard-Perkins or the Bill Walsh West Coast Offense?